In early 2018, the Kentucky Board of Education unanimously approved standards for the controversial Bible Literacy classes. Nearly a year later, Gov. Matt Bevin signed into law a proposal mandating that every public high school in Kentucky displays openly the national motto, “In God We Trust.”
Under current law, the legitimacy of religion in public schools rests on whether it’s “official” or “private” speech. Student religious organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes can meet at school, as well as publish and distribute religious material, since those constitute ‘private’ speech not technically endorsed by the school.
On the other hand, all forms of compulsory or school-endorsed religion are strictly forbidden, and if ‘student-led’ prayer occurs at events, teachers and administrators can’t be involved in any way. When the Supreme Court heard Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, a case surrounding invocations at varsity football games, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded for the majority, “In this case… the ‘degree of school involvement’ makes it clear that the pregame prayers bear ‘the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position.’”
“Bible Literacy” classes walk a fine line subject to constitutional challenge. The content, tone, and inclusivity of these classes could make the difference for their survival, but the odds of surviving a journey through the court system are slim regardless.
The Kentucky branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has officially conducted an investigation regarding the constitutionality of these classes, finding serious constitutional discrepancies within them.
“The ACLU of Kentucky continues to believe that ‘Bible Literacy’ courses, some of which have been in place before the bill’s passage last year, have no place in our Commonwealth’s public schools… Our investigation now vividly illustrates the myriad of problems that can arise in our classrooms when they operating without proper guidance and training,” said ACLU-KY Executive Director Michael Aldridge.
Todd Steenbergen, a Bible Literacy and Social Studies teacher at Barton County High School, disputes that characterization.
“Never do I say what I think or believe, nor do I encourage students in class to believe or not believe in a certain way. It is similar to teaching about political issues,” said Steenbergen.
Governor Matt Bevin, himself an evangelical, won his race in 2015 in part by appealing to conservative evangelicals and has used the governor’s chair to further increase the role of religion in Kentucky government.
Along with the ‘In God we Trust’ and Bible Literacy proposals, Bevin and his appointees have shown support on multiple occasions for ‘religious liberty’ defenses in cases of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Bevin even declared both 2016 and 2017 “The Year of the Bible” in Kentucky.
Students in BGHS are reacting to these proposals in varied ways; while some support the implementation of these religious laws and proposals in school, others worry that they have the potential to infringe on constitutional rights.
“These laws could potentially make non-religious students feel uncomfortable because they are enforcing these beliefs in public areas. Some may argue that our country was built on Christain values, but we must also remember our constitutional right to freedom of religion that could be violated with these new laws,” said Mary Maragret Bryant, a senior at BGHS.
Under current law, the legitimacy of religion in public schools rests on whether it’s “official” or “private” speech. Student religious organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes can meet at school, as well as publish and distribute religious material, since those constitute ‘private’ speech not technically endorsed by the school.
On the other hand, all forms of compulsory or school-endorsed religion are strictly forbidden, and if ‘student-led’ prayer occurs at events, teachers and administrators can’t be involved in any way. When the Supreme Court heard Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, a case surrounding invocations at varsity football games, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded for the majority, “In this case… the ‘degree of school involvement’ makes it clear that the pregame prayers bear ‘the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position.’”
“Bible Literacy” classes walk a fine line subject to constitutional challenge. The content, tone, and inclusivity of these classes could make the difference for their survival, but the odds of surviving a journey through the court system are slim regardless.
The Kentucky branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has officially conducted an investigation regarding the constitutionality of these classes, finding serious constitutional discrepancies within them.
“The ACLU of Kentucky continues to believe that ‘Bible Literacy’ courses, some of which have been in place before the bill’s passage last year, have no place in our Commonwealth’s public schools… Our investigation now vividly illustrates the myriad of problems that can arise in our classrooms when they operating without proper guidance and training,” said ACLU-KY Executive Director Michael Aldridge.
Todd Steenbergen, a Bible Literacy and Social Studies teacher at Barton County High School, disputes that characterization.
“Never do I say what I think or believe, nor do I encourage students in class to believe or not believe in a certain way. It is similar to teaching about political issues,” said Steenbergen.
Governor Matt Bevin, himself an evangelical, won his race in 2015 in part by appealing to conservative evangelicals and has used the governor’s chair to further increase the role of religion in Kentucky government.
Along with the ‘In God we Trust’ and Bible Literacy proposals, Bevin and his appointees have shown support on multiple occasions for ‘religious liberty’ defenses in cases of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Bevin even declared both 2016 and 2017 “The Year of the Bible” in Kentucky.
Students in BGHS are reacting to these proposals in varied ways; while some support the implementation of these religious laws and proposals in school, others worry that they have the potential to infringe on constitutional rights.
“These laws could potentially make non-religious students feel uncomfortable because they are enforcing these beliefs in public areas. Some may argue that our country was built on Christain values, but we must also remember our constitutional right to freedom of religion that could be violated with these new laws,” said Mary Maragret Bryant, a senior at BGHS.
By Ruthie Kesri & Abby Adams-Smith